A/HRC/41/48 VII. Social networks and the activities of judges and prosecutors 76. The influence of new media culture in redefining communication and practices regarding personal information-sharing raises unique and interesting questions for courts. In the global era, use of social media platforms is part of most people’s day-to-day activities. 77. Social media represent a formidable tool for outreach and public education, and can contribute to strengthening public trust in the judiciary. However, the use of social media raises new challenges and ethical concerns relating to the propriety of the content posted, the unintended demonstration of bias or interest or unintended consequences arising from the interaction of judges and prosecutors with third parties. 78. International instruments do not contain any guidance on how judges and prosecutors could exercise their freedoms online. However, it is widely accepted that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression.60 In practice, this means that justice operators should, therefore, refrain from taking part in any activity that could compromise the dignity of their office or cause conflicts of interest that could hamper public confidence in the justice system (A/HRC/26/32, para. 58). 79. To date, human rights courts and mechanisms have not had the opportunity to clarify the kind of conduct that is expected from a judge or a prosecutor in the exercise of his or her freedom of expression on social media. In accordance with international standards, judges and prosecutors are subject to more severe restrictions than others in their professional and private life and conduct. However, it would be unreasonable to expect them to retreat from public life altogether. The complete isolation of a judge or a prosecutor from the community in which they live is neither possible nor beneficial,61 and a blanket instruction to judges and prosecutors to simply “stay off social media” is neither justified nor realistic in the current digital age. 80. The behaviour of judges and prosecutors on social media is visible to the public. Any comment or statement posted by a judge or a prosecutor should reaffirm the people’s faith in the judiciary and be consistent with the dignity of his or her office and with the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. As civil servants, judges and prosecutors must ensure that the expression of their personal views and convictions does not adversely affect their official duties, reflect poorly on their status as civil servants or call into question their impartiality or their duties of loyalty and responsibility to their office. In expressing their views and opinions online, they should always respect and honour their office, and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the judicial system. They should refrain from any online activity that may harm the public trust in the judiciary, or raise doubts as to its independence and impartiality. 81. Caution is recommended for a judge when engaging in any electronic communication, including communications by text or email, or when participating in online social networking sites or otherwise posting material on the Internet, given the accessibility, widespread transmission and permanence of electronic communications and material posted on the Internet. The same principles that govern a judge’s ability to socialize in person, on paper, or over the telephone should apply to electronic communications, including the use of the Internet and social networking sites. 82. For prosecutors, this changing landscape poses similar challenges. Media guidelines for prosecutors from civil law and common law traditions have been developed in several countries. The common thread in these communication guidelines is to prevent the dissemination of incomplete or inaccurate information that would undermine public confidence in the public prosecution. 60 61 Human Rights Council resolution 38/7. UNODC, Commentary on the Bangalore Principles, para. 31. 15